"So the more clouds and water vapour there is in the sky, the lesser amount of the suns energy will strike the earth, and the cooler it will be in daylight."

And the warmer it will be at night. The average temperature of the Earth is warmer than the average temperature of the moon. Despite the moon absorbing more sunlight than the Earth, the Earth is about 15 degrees C warmer on average. That's the greenhouse effect at work.

Debunked by whom? Talk about spewing without citations. You are repeating yourself, so I shall post the most recent published work on the subject I could find. Again:
"Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content," Balmaseda et al 2013. Entire Abstract (content is pay walled):
"The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observational-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution."
[MarkfromLexington posted the link to this abstract Mar 17 at 22:30--did you just ignore it? Here it is again: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract]

Jim, humans put out many emissions, one of which is black carbon. A very recent, very voluminous study finds that black carbon is actually the second most important warming emission from humans, in part because it accelerates melting of sea ice, ice caps, and glaciers, thus reducing surfaces which reflect light back to space before it can create heat on earth.

So I wonder if it might be possible that black carbon landing on sea ice and on glaciers might accelerate warming at those sites considerably more than widespread CO2 would do, because the black carbon absorbs light and converts it to heat at the place where it is located?

That doesn't go against the thesis that the models may be over-predicting warming, it merely says that black carbon can have an outsized effect very locally.

The first two papers I posted show stratospheric aerosols increasing from 2000 to now. Pretty much everyone knows increases in SO2 aerosols enhance cooling. If you want to read the one showing their impact on AGW, please refer to:

So the 500 billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies helps energy poverty how? So the many trillions of dollars in damages continued carbon emissions causes over the next century helps energy poverty how? The net cost of fossil fuels is far more than renewables. Further, the cost of renewables is falling as fossil fuel prices continue to rise. I'm sorry, but the poverty argument just doesn't jibe. From this point forward, fossil fuels cause more poverty than they remove.

Those practicing science, D6k, are completely aware of the limits that science has in dealing with complex phenomena. There is no irony in the recognition of those limitations. It is also obvious that someone who would invoke the existence of computers or the internet as a demonstration of the ability of science to deal with these problems is obviously completely ignorant of thse difficulties.

Please keep in mind that the studies you cite primarily concern attribution of the source of aerosols, which has been shown to originate from volcanic activity. But no one has done a good attribution showing what effect these aerosols have had on temperatures. So it's plausible, but not self-evident, that they have had a significant impact on the evolution of global temperature during the last decade.

There's actually not much to explain for the last decade, even with several studies arguing for small competing forcings associated with aerosols, stratospheric water vapor, etc...all climate model simulations show decades with flat or negative near surface temperature trends, even while the top of atmosphere radiative balance features a net input of energy. Because the "lack of trend" is not statistically significant, I don't understand all this fuss.

Your argument reduces to --- AGW scientists are the best and any evidence that points to another conclusion is wrong and dangerously wrong. These malcontents must be silenced and if need be crucified. We shall not tolerate dissent.

"The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

"This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996.

"Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he [The Met Office spokesman] made no comment.”

ICSC comment: It is not surprising that the Met Office spokesman had no comment. The forecast is already proven wrong, as shown in the graph the Met Office boosts as being an accurate plot of "global temperature":

Clearly more attention to more variables that might be influential is needed, and the analysis will get better over time. For example, the effect of melting ice needs to be made more explicit. More importantly climate scientists need to develop some sort of meso-model interface which bridges between estimates from the top down and bottom up approaches and affects each, and then back test their models against those influences. That is, predict each of the last several overlapping decades from the previous several decades, weighted appropriately. There are plenty of statisticians around who know how to do the latter, it's a matter of building the bridge between the models.